March 2, 2012

Oh, my. Things have reached an advanced state of weirdness. I've been avoiding weighing in on this subject, in part because, as a law professor, I don't like talking about an individual law student. At this point, there's so much political leveraging going on, that I don't know where to begin. I'll make a list of my thoughts, numbered, but not in order of importance.

1. Everyone is using the birth control issue, seeking political advantage. I don't really care who started it, but all are responsible for exploiting it, and some are doing a better job of it than others.

2. The student, Sandra Fluke, is young, and she's gotten swept up into a media frenzy, but she's an adult, she's chosen to be a political activist, and she accepted a great opportunity, all voluntarily. I feel sympathetic toward someone who's got to deal with so much, so suddenly, but she seems to know what she's doing, and she's handling it well.

3. I like Rush Limbaugh, and I get his concept of media tweaking, and I get that he's lampooning government regulation, but this is one of his worst efforts. He's getting so much wrong. He keeps saying that the woman is asking taxpayers to pay for her birth control and that she wants it free. But she's talking about health insurance coverage, which is not paid for with tax money. She'd like government regulation requiring the private entities involved to cover birth control, but when our health insurance, which we pay for, covers something, we're not getting it free. We buy the health insurance! And Limbaugh keeps questioning how birth control could cost $1,000 a year. He calculates how many times the woman must be having sex, but obviously, the woman is talking about birth control pills (and perhaps other devices), which you use all the time, regardless of how often you have sex. And Limbaugh fails to include doctor visits in his calculations, and you need a prescription for birth control pills. So most of his humor — the woman must be having sex 3 times a day... she's a "slut" because she wants to be paid for having sex — is not based on facts. Limbaugh ended yesterday's segment with one of his refrains: He lives in "Realville." He needs to check his GPS. That was not from Realville.

4. Quite aside from the lack of a factual basis for his humor, it's just mean to aim words like "slut" and "prostitute" at a woman, especially a young woman, even if the metaphor is apt. Even when you get the joke and agree with the criticism of the policy she's advocating, it feels ugly. The humor backfires.

5. I haven't listened to today's show yet, but I can see that he did a segment called "The Democrats are Desperate: Obama Calls Sandra Fluke, the 30-Year-Old Victim." I don't know. He's complaining that people "have no sense of humor" and that "all they've got, is to go out and try to discredit their critics, to impugn and discredit the people who disagree with them." That sounds desperate. Limbaugh is saying that he wants to be expansive and absurdist and have all his fun, but he's lavishly giving material to his political opponents, and they are going to have their fun too. Everyone's using everything, as I said, and the question is who's getting the best of it.

6. What's really at stake is the presidential election. Limbaugh is obtruding. Good for him. Nice for his show. But I don't think it's helping Romney and the not-Romneys.

362 comments:

The problem is Obama included this mandate to please a big donor block, just as he cancelled Keystone to please a big donor block.

With the health insurance mandate, the government will be choosing what coverages we must, by law, buy. They can pay off their donors through us. Right now it's birth control and breast pumps which have, for some reason, become the most important women's health issue. But it could be anything.

I went to grad school at a fairly small out-of-way place which is not all comparable to Georgetown University Law School. There was one professor there (the only National Academy of Science Scholar) at the time who I will never forget telling his students: "If you have time for sex in your first couple years, you're not working hard enough. But don't worry--it comes back."

Didn't she say "3,000 a year"? Listen, calling her or her friends sluts may not sound right but she is the one who say she and her friends are having $3000 worth of sex.

By the way, when did it become acceptable to use the birth control pill as contraception for incredibly sexually active people? Aren't condoms the only way to both prevent disease and pregnancy?

We keep hearing about how the government SHOULD force insurers to cover contraception i.e. BCP because it lowers costs. Well, I'd be surprised if it does given the incidences of STDs spread without condoms.

A woman can get the necessary exam and prescription from Planned Parenthood for free if she cannot afford it. She can use the prescription to get birth control pills at Target. A 28 day supply is $9. That comes to $351 over the three years of law school. Not quite the $3,000 figure that was thrown out there.

"A 28 day supply is $9. That comes to $351 over the three years of law school. Not quite the $3,000 figure that was thrown out there."

Yeah, I didn't even get to that part.

Ann, you can say "everyone is using the birth control issue, seeking political advantage" but that's like the mother who points at two kids fighting and says, "I don't care who started it". Unfortunately, every time the mother turns her back, the kid on the left continues to punch the kid on the right in the nose.

So most of his humor — the woman must be having sex 3 times a day... she's a "slut" because she wants to be paid for having sex — is not based on facts.

Sorry, I don't see humor, just unrelenting nastiness.

And he doubled down with it when yesterday he said he wanted to watch the videotapes of women having sex.

And you can't comment on something because it involves a law student?!? At least make up an excuse that seems half way plausible. This excuse approaches "Jose Padilla might have been signaling Al Qaeda associates by blinking" levels of ridiculousness

I submit that tax payer funded health care (or "single payer") is right around the corner. Government forcing private insurance companies and religious institutions to give anything away for "free" cannot without taxing or charging someone else.

This is part of a wonderfully orchestrated maneuver to distract the voters from Obama's economic failures to something nearly irrelevant. Contraception is a matter decided 40 years ago. Free contraception is not a human right. But, the media has used it as a trick, starting with George Snufflepagus, the Clinton apparatchik who pretends at journalism.

It helps only the fellow Ann voted for in the last election.

This "law student" is anything but. She's an activist, a fact easily available to anyone curious enough to look. She's indefensible.

Planned Parenthood can sell her birth control pills for $15 or she can get to Walmart for $9 a cycle.

She allowed herself to be used as a prop and is reaping her reward. She entered willingly and her puppet masters were hoping that Limbaugh or another high profile conservative would show her some love. This seems to be a regular feature from the left, "We found an adorable woman to use and now you are being mean to her. Shame on you."

I am not a big fan of Rush but I heard him today in the car and he was pretty clear about Georgetown's rights and her responsibilities. Rush intimated that her testimony before the committee (I've only read her written statement) mentioned her wanting to be paid back for birth control on a per use basis. That seems to be the basis of the "slut" comment. And I didn't hear yesterday so I am making assumptions based on his comments today.

It is Rush's job to obtrude not his job to get a specific candidate elected. Although Rush is a dab-hand at reading politics and probably feels that "now they're going after birth control" was a bridge to far for dems. He will beat them to death with it if it hurts the dems, and he probably has an extra million listeners today (that's his job and he does that very well).

I do wonder how it will work with students and college insurance programs. If they are 26, they can still be on their parents' policies.If they are not, do their incomes qualify them for government subsidies? Students are generally quite low income.

By the way, when did it become acceptable to use the birth control pill as contraception for incredibly sexually active people? Aren't condoms the only way to both prevent disease and pregnancy?

Who (besides Rush) said she was "incredibly sexually active"? For all you know, which is very little, she is monogamous but still sexually active. Are you really contending that a 30 year old in a serious relationship shouldn't have sex. You need to grow up.

Also, it is perfectly acceptable to use more than one form of birth control. The pill is more effective than condoms, and using both is even more effective.

I don't care if Limbuagh said something he shouldn't have. I DO care that the dollar amount she's claiming seems to be made out of whole cloth. If that's the case, it absolutely needs to be pushed back.

Many people have their facts wrong here, but there is one "fact" that most of us "get." That which is done to/with private health insurance today will be done with public mandates later. And, when it's a public mandate the taxpayers inevitably pay for it. As tax payers we're getting tired of paying for more and more of what people have been conditioned to think of as their "rights." This is very near the last straw. That it's so divisive involving morals, religion, and values makes it especially loathsome.

Because like it or not, the government (at both the state and federal levels), is heavily involved in the provision and regulation of health insurance (in fact insurance of all types).

I'm not asking why government should regulate insurance.I asked, very particularly, why the pill (and breast pumps) should be singled out to be treated in a very special way, different than any other medicine. Even life-saving medicine.

ROMNEY: George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so, and if I were a governor of a state or...

Pushing back on Obama's regulatory overreach is one thing. Embracing the whole idiotic issue is another.

So why is it that the Pill should be free, but all other prescription Meds have some sort of co-pay?

Isn't that the government telling insurers to give it away "for free"? Isn't that unfair to men, non-sexually active women and post-menopausal women?

Why is the Pill even covered by Health INSURANCE at all? That's like car insurance covering oil changes or fuzzy dice. It's not an unforeseen event or illness - it is a reasonably lifestyle choice. Doesn't sound like an insurable event.

The woman is not a prostitute since for a professional birth control is a business expense and would be covered in the fees charged.

She does seem to be saying that she and her friends are spending thousands of dollars each year on birth control - which would indicate a lot of sex, i.e., at least the single ones are sluts by definition - and are going broke doing it, so she wants the insurance compnies to cover it with no co-pay.

And since the Democrats are insisting that all employed people take out their specified insurance, that is indeed synonymous with "the taxpayers."

Again, this is all about intentionally stirring up the base and has nothing whatever to do with "women's health."

A reasonably intelligent 30 year old woman who is foolish enough to go before Congress with statements like that has got it coming.

Romney's answer in the debate with George S. was the best response in this whole kurfuffle when he refused to take the bait on contraceptives and you highlighted it. But from that point on it has morphed into a monster with 1) Obama exploiting it2) Santorum exploiting it and getting a bump3) and now this stupid charade involving Limbaugh and the student and obviously Obama wanting a piece of that action.

Althouse said, "And Limbaugh keeps questioning how birth control could cost $1,000 a year. He calculates how many times the woman must be having sex, but obviously, the woman is talking about birth control pills (and perhaps other devices), which you use all the time, regardless of how often you have sex. And Limbaugh fails to include doctor visits in his calculations, and you need a prescription for birth control pills. So most of his humor — the woman must be having sex 3 times a day... she's a "slut" because she wants to be paid for having sex — is not based on facts."

Dumb commenter responds, "She does seem to be saying that she and her friends are spending thousands of dollars each year on birth control - which would indicate a lot of sex, i.e., at least the single ones are sluts by definition"

Remember the previous time this came up and I was asking if you people even knew any women or how birth control works. It's obvious Limbaugh doesn't.

To the extent that the taxpayer subsidizes company-provided benefits, he pays for the birth control provided under that system.

The royally screwed are the single, celibate, self-employed male entrepeneurs in their 20s who subsidize the whole Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Chip, Health Benefits and Foodstamp socialist programs, not to mention Fed Income Tax.

I think such younguns, typical of Jobs, Woziak, Dell, and Zuckerberg should get the hell out of this socialist system and go somewhere where they'd be appreciated. Like Estonia or Hong Kong, with flat income taxes of 15% and no cradle-to-grave welfare.

Re: #3 "She'd like government regulation requiring the private entities involved to cover birth control, but when our health insurance, which we pay for, covers something, we're not getting it free. We buy the health insurance!"

Not in 2014 when the health insurance exchanges kick in and federal subsidies start flowing. Rush is protesting what he will have to subsidize just as, for example, there are those who object to school vouchers because they might be used parents to send their children to a religious education. If religious people have to subsidize the sex life of coeds, why can't the religious demand their subsidies as well? As David Burge tweets "I'll keep my rosaries off your ovaries, you keep your Dust-Vac off my paycheck. Deal?"

Republicans have screwed this up in a BIG way. Every time contraception has come up in an interview or in a debate or anywhere, the response should have been: "The ONLY reason you are talking about contraception is because the Obama administration decided to force someone--first employers and then insurance companies--to pay for birth control. The idea was bad and it adds to the cost of health insurance premiums, driving up the cost of health care. Instead of talking about birth control, we need to talk about how to cut government spending. I would cut spending by eliminating DHS, EPA, Department of Ed, etc." EVERY TIME IT COMES UP.

There is no point in responding to any of the questions about why someone uses birth control, or how much it costs, or why it should or should not be free, or any other question about birth control. Birth control is the responsibility of the individual. Period.

Just yesterday, the Obama campaign tried to raise money by putting a mock-up of what the GOP want on Tumblr.It was a permissions slip from employers either giving or denying a female employee the right to use birth control.

That *that* isn't as outrageous as whatever Rush said is just baffling to me.

What would have been the MSM and liberal reaction if Bush had announced insurance plans were not allowed to provide coverage for contraceptives? Yet Obama has done the exact opposite? Why is that OK? It is not within the powers of the president no matter who is in office.

I asked, very particularly, why the pill (and breast pumps) should be singled out to be treated in a very special way, different than any other medicine

The short answer is it is not. Medical insurance, by both state and federal law, is required to provide certain benefits (e.g., well-baby care, annual physicals, certain screening including annual ob-gyn exams and prostate exams for men) without co-pay or deductibles. The rationale behind this is that preventative care will result in overall medical costs and benefit both the insured and the insurer. Contraception certainly is well within both the concept of preventative care and the cost savings that accrue from it.

I think Rush has succeeded in his goals. The Democrats wanted the press to talk about their spin of the Obamacare/Catholic Church/Religious Freedom issue as simply Republicans efforts to deny women contraceptives. Now everyone is talking about whether Rush Limbaugh is an obnoxious jerk and the 30 year-old Ms. Fluke is recklessly sexually active. By sending out this "decoy" he has completely deprived the Democrat talking points of oxygen. HEH HEH

Rush lost this one. You can't call women sluts no matter what they do now and to do so implies an attempt to control their behavior, which it isn't his right to do since he's not her dad or her pimp. If she's having sex 6000 times a year though she is probably a prostitute, which means that her pimp should pay her fees, or else they should be passed on to the consumer (the Johns). Rush should have just stuck with who's paying for her customer's pleasures rather than whether she has a right to satisfy her customers' pleasures. He should have argued that he shouldn't have to pay for what she does in the bedroom or int he backs of cars with customers. She should pay out of her own pocket, or her pimp should pay or else the customers should pay. The government shouldn't force the rest of us to pay for something that's illegal in the first place. Maybe we misunderstood something though! That's sometimes possible!

it's just mean to aim words like "slut" and "prostitute" at a woman, especially a young woman, even if the metaphor is apt

Oh grow up.

It's just mean, even if apt.

What is mean is expecting other people to pay for your sex. And, yes, when you expect to be paid for you having sex, that is the equivilent of being a whore. Humorous or not, it is rather perceptive.

And she is not asking to be treated as a "woman," she is asking to be treated like a child. A child who needs daddy to pay for her playthings.

A real grown-up woman is responsible for her own expenses. Her body, herself. Not her body, everyone in the world pitches in.

You want there to be niceness about all this? How about we stop with the immaturity of irresponsibility, we stop with the inanity of private acts being a public matter, and the despotic tyranny of making other people pay for others to have sex?

I don't see how Romney gets hurt by this. He's seen as the middle-of-the-road guy triangulating between the free birth control for everyone Obama/Pelosi/Reid side and the your-a-slut and contraception-is-wrong Limbaugh/Santorum side yelling "Uh guys, we have an economy to worry about. Can we stop talking about stupid stuff." In the end, Romney looks like the adult in the room (which he is.)

Once again, reason #76432 why employers should not be involved in the provision of health insurance to employees. I am not sure why a law student's opinion on the issue is relevant.

That said, I think it's tremendously awesome that Ms. Fluke has as much sex as her ladyparts can handle. Nothing she said convinces me that she should not have to pay for contraception.

Beer keeps me healthy. Mentally. I don't know what I would do without it. It is important to me. I think it is a human right. Therefore, my employer should "provide access to" free beer for me by giving it to me for free, without co-pays or deductibles or increased premuim payments. For if they do not give it to me for free, then they are "anti-beer" and wish to outlaw it in violation of my constitutional rights under the 21st amendment to access to beer.

She pays $23,000 a year (or was it a semester to go to Georgetown, and then complains that she has to spend $1,000 a year on birth control. As others have noted, that is 1,000 condomns a year. Or 2.74 times a day is she getting some action.

Medical insurance, by both state and federal law, is required to provide certain benefits (e.g., well-baby care, annual physicals, certain screening including annual ob-gyn exams and prostate exams for men) without co-pay or deductibles.

Well baby care, annual physicals, and ob-gyn appointments covered with no copay?Why am I making a co-pay?

Rush should have focused on her real ability to pay. Fluke is attending a very expensive law school. Is she part of the OWS crowd and does she expect the tax payer to bailout her law school tuition as well? Is she being paid to say this? Why, in these dire times of debt and big government, do we need more entitlements?

btw - Birth Control Pill information: The “Pill,” introduced in the early 1960s, uses hormones (estrogen and progestin) to prevent pregnancy. Users have to take one pill a day and need a prescription from their doctor. The Cost: According to Planned Parenthood, birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month, depending on health insurance coverage and type of pill. On an annual basis, that means the Pill costs between $160 to $600.I agree Rush should not be so bombastic and should not have called her a slut. Just think if Ed Schultz had said something like that? Oh wait...

I think the real reason Althouse didn't want to comment on this controversy was that she knew that her obscenely misogynist commentariat would quickly reduce the thread to the lowest common denominator as they tried to be even more insulting than Rush.

He keeps saying that the woman is asking taxpayers to pay for her birth control and that she wants it free. But she's talking about health insurance coverage, which is not paid for with tax money.

So, if the "free" birth control isn't being paid by the taxpayers, it's being paid by the insurance companies who then passes it on in higher premiums. And who are the people paying the premiums if not taxpayers. Really lame argument on your part.

The absurdity of this whole matter is the expectation that birth control should be free. Nothing is free. Someone has to make it and that costs money. The fact - as others have pointed out - that birth control pills are available for less than $10 a month is also an issue. When my wife has to get a prescription for high blood pressure, she pays a copay. Why should birth control be "free" when virtually every other medication isn't?

This 30 year old woman brought attention to herself by testifying before Congress. She claimed she and her classmates were spending $1000 a year on contraceptives (how much are they spending on tuition, books, etc to attend Georgetown Law School?). Either she lied in her testimony or she's using another form of birth control. Condoms are cheap so why is she spending $1000 a year on contraception.

Just an aside. It's how our prisoners in N. Vietnam signaled when being filmed for propaganda purposes. It's how we knew our prisoners were being tortured.

back to the program already in progress.

You don't want to be labeled a slut? Don't act like one. For sure don't go national television and tell everyone you need $3000.00 dollars worth of baby bombs.Hell. There's porn stars that don't get that much sex.She might want to think about getting herself speyed.

The rationale behind this is that preventative care will result in overall medical costs and benefit both the insured and the insurer. Contraception certainly is well within both the concept of preventative care and the cost savings that accrue from it.

I know that is the supposed rationale, but in reality if it is cheaper, that's how insurers will structure insurance. The fact that the government says it has to mandate some things, but not others, makes a lie out of that argument.

Sure, birth control may save money as prevention, but so does penicillin. So do epi-pens (they are expensive, but cheaper than an emergency room visit).

Yet they are being treated very specially. And it is embarrassing to hear women pretend it is the most important health issue in America.

The rationale behind this is that preventative care will result in overall medical costs and benefit both the insured and the insurer.

The problem with that argument is that preventive healthcare is an expense on top of fast growing acute and elder care. The rationale is that such care will prevent future outlays. This is not going to square well with current demographic trends. Young, healthy people like the insistent Ms. Fluke are actually taking resources away from sick people and the truly indigent. In a sense, Ms. Fluke should be ashamed that she is not "paying forward."

reder Frederson said...I think the real reason Althouse didn't want to comment on this controversy was that she knew that her obscenely misogynist commentariat would quickly reduce the thread to the lowest common denominator as they tried to be even more insulting than Rush.

Rush's misogyny pushes him to the edge once again as he mis-represens the facts and her testimony. Even the President of Georgetown had to step in and state:"One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression," Georgetown University President John J. DeGioia said. "And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position – including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels – responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student." Also it turns out that three of the four health plans offered at Georgetown include contraceptive coverage. Students pay a fee for their health plans and they should have a right for the choice-- it really is that simple.

The absurdity of this whole matter is the expectation that birth control should be free. Nothing is free. Someone has to make it and that costs money.

Yes. A round of thanks to Andy and the other gays around here, by the way, who are going to be forced to pay for contraception that they have no use for, all the while you are expected to pay for your own condoms which do, in fact, help prevent real diseases, as opposed to preventing health and purposely causing healthy organs to be dysfunctional, as with the Pill.

If people were paying attention, sure. But in reality, Romney gets hurt by this because millions of people right now believe that a major Republican platform involves banning birth control. Remember that people are idiots and Democrats are dishonest and perfectly willing to exploit their idiocy.

"Also it turns out that three of the four health plans offered at Georgetown include contraceptive coverage. Students pay a fee for their health plans and they should have a right for the choice-- it really is that simple."

However, your phrasing makes it clear which side you are on. This is a religious freedom debate. You, and the Left, would like to frame this as a "Birth Control Debate" or perhaps a "Women's Health" debate, but we're not that stupid.

Obama and Limbaugh (But I guess not Ann Althouse) both know that Catholic Hospitals, Schools, Charities, etc will ultimately be closed over this debate. They cannot both promote their religious belief's while simultaneously underminding them via Obama Decree.

They may start with civil disobedience, but eventually, it will turn into legal action and law enforcement under orders from the Federal Government.

At which point doors will be closed and institutions closed. And guess what, we'll have Obamacare!

And what will Obamacare give to all of these now unemployed workers who couldn't get their pills, condoms and sterilization for free under their insurance plan?

Free condoms, pills and sterlization. On our dime.

And now we arrive at Rush's point. If we're going to pay for her to spread her legs and be a whore, we want the video.

This is all so incredibly dishonest - Fluke, the media, Obama, the whole bunch. Here's why:

If it was so imperative that women get these coverages, then the government could pay pharmacies, individual clinics, etc., and bypass forcing the insurance companies to cover it. But instead, we've got the left in high dudgeon that those evil GOP'ers are going force women to wear chastity belts.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, my 2nd amendment rights are being violated because my boss hasn't bought me a gun.

Rush has a legitimate point, if in a roundabout way - if you want someone else to pay for the things you think you need to have sex, then its prostitution. Sorry if that isn't politically correct.

Contraception certainly is well within both the concept of preventative care

Only if you see children as diseases and women's organs functioning as intended to be a form of sickness.

But with respect to this utilitarian cost-benefit analysis that contraception will save money because it will result in fewer pregnancies --(1) The only persons who will obtain contraception under an employer health plan are those that are already buying it themselves. There is no added usage here, only a shift in the burden of payment.(2) Whether contraceptive use actually results in fewer pregnancies is not clear. With contraceptive use comes increased sexual activity. More sex means more chances at getting pregnant, considering the potential for contraceptive failure. History has shown that unmarried pregnancies have skyrocketed along with the higher availability of contraceptives. As a result, abortions have increased too with increased contraception.(3) Fewer pregnancies might mean fewer pre-natal, post-natal, and child expenses, but it also means fewer children. Fewer children today means fewer adult workers and taxpayers tomorrow. As a result, a contraceptive culture is a suicidal culture. More and more old people with big medical bills and fewer and fewer young people to pay those bills. And we don't need to reach "Children of Men" for society to spin into a death spiral from the lack of new generations.

Remember that people are idiots and Democrats are dishonest and perfectly willing to exploit their idiocy.

As Obama did, yesterday with the "permission slip".

But Althouse didn't post about that, she posted about Rush (a radio host) instead. And then blamed *him* for the talk not being focused on the policy. Is it just that Obama is less important than Rush?

It is beyond me all those here defending Rush on this. I used to like Rush. Here's the bottom line. Birth control is a non-issue. I am in favor of letting the Catholic institutions decide not to cover it. I am against Obama on that. But that is a matter of respecting their autonomy, not a birth control-sexual mores issue. Rush and the entire Republican base has been led astray on this (by their latest hearthrob, Santorum, that is. I do not know what the semi-polygamous Newt feels about mandated birth control). It is totally wasting its time on this. The Democrats love it that they have and have reason to love it. Rush loves it because it gets him more attention and listeners. It just does nothing for a different approach to the nation's ills. At a time when people are crying out for someone to focus on economics and the looming entitlement crisis, we are debating the rights and wrongs of calling people sluts! And the exhaulted "base" are the people who think Romney doesn't have a clue! Good grief.

With contraceptive use comes increased sexual activity. More sex means more chances at getting pregnant, considering the potential for contraceptive failure

You are truly an idiot. Birth control pills are 99% plus effective. Or in other words you would have to have sex 100 times more frequently to have the same chance of becoming pregnant. And obviously, birth control must be effective since the birth rate has dropped precipitously in countries where birth control is readily available and socially accepted.

Under your logic, the availability of birth control must be leading to people having less, not more, sex.

In high-school in the 70s - EVERYONE knew how to get 'contraceptives' (we called it "The Pill" or "Birth Control") - this odd use of the formal term is just one of the weird things going on here.

All you had to do was go down to the clinic - they'd even write you an excuse to get back into class. They'd give you the pills and an appointment to come back when you ran out.

Every clinic had 50 forms for you to fill out - and they WANTED you to fill them out - saying you were low income, so that they could claim to be helping low-income women, and you'd get the stuff for free. Telling them you didn't need to fill the forms out because you were going to pay cash wasn't met with a happy reception.

Even if they weren't free, they certainly were NOT expensive, whether it was "The Pill" or "IUD's" - and it hasn't changed. Talking to some kids today - when they reached the age where they went in to the clinic, they also were given the forms, and told that, as students, they could get it free or reduced. Even though they HAD cash to pay for the things.

This whole thing is absurd.

It's a set-up - Obama knows it. Pelosi knows it. Staged. The whole thing - Stephanopolous knew it, probably saw the whole plan laid out - and either spoke too soon at that debate or inserted the meme as instructed - that we may never know.

Anyway - I thought we were supposed to be for keeping government OUT of the bedroom... apparently not the new Democrat Party.

I'm fine with that--more than fine with it, in fact. The "slut" bullshit is, however, just that.

It is, and that's why *I* am not focused on that. People making a choice to focus on that are trying very hard not to look at the rest of it. Rush isn't forcing anybody to look at him instead of Obama's lies and Fluke's testimony.

When "It's the economy, stupid," it's sad to see the GOP falling off the message that would resonate the most: The Economy

And, falling into the trap of "making more babies" ... as if that's any of their business.

Even the Popes have failed in Italy. They went from having huge families ... where Mussolini was giving medals to moms who had multiples of a dozen. To having the lowest birthrate in all of the European countries. (Less than "two per family.")

No. The Italians aren't having less sex! So either they can "count the safe period," or they no longer worry about the consequences of using birth control.

Ann as long as Obamacare is law it is a taxpayer funded issue. Secondly it's a matter of contract law, the government forcing insurance companies under duress to offer coverage that they or their policy holders may not want to pay for. The student is perfectly free to buy her own birth control pills at a pharmacy or find a carrier that wishes to offer them for their own commercial reasons. Since a mandatory policy coverage by an employer paid policy is a tax deductible item it is being subsidizes by the taxpayers.

Now hopefully the Supreme Court will toss Obama-dem care aside for a number of reasons but until then it is the law.

So, the Left says - paying for contraception is good because it means less babies while hiding half the cards. If there are less babies, how long can the "paying for..." part go on? It takes both parts to keep this Socialist Utopia afloat. Methinks we're headed the way of Atlantis.

3. Ann might have a point with the orchestra metaphor, but reducing an Obama play to a gutter ball might be the only way to drain the air out of the artificial issue.

4. The central issue is the degree of government dependency in our society. You want to grow the government larger, then how large is too large? You want to reduce the size and scope of government, then how small is too small?

I believe Obama made the smarter political calculation by staying out of this debate and offloading it to the media, and letting them duke it out with Republicans. By inserting himself into the debate he's willfully lowered himself to the same level of silliness he'd originally tricked the Republicans onto. Now both he and the Republicans are pressed to answer: "Why are we talking about this when gas is racing past $5 a gallon, unemployment is over 8%, inflation is up, Iran is soon to go nuclear, etc., etc., etc."

Althouse wrote: She'd like government regulation requiring the private entities involved to cover birth control, but when our health insurance, which we pay for, covers something, we're not getting it free.

I presume that Ms. Fluke would be willing to pay the additional cost per month of what she'd demanding her insurance cover. Is that so or is it not so? If yes, then there is no issue. If she is demanding subsidy, then she is wanting something for nothing. There are worse words for that than "slut" in my book. See my point above about taking healthcare resources from the trully needy.

Now both he and the Republicans are pressed to answer: "Why are we talking about this when gas is racing past $5 a gallon, unemployment is over 8%, inflation is up, Iran is soon to go nuclear, etc., etc., etc."

Spot on! And as someone already said upthread, this isn't hurt Romney.

IIRC, sterilization is also a zero-copay item. So, yes, any insurance program legal in the US under PPACA must hand out free tubal ligations. We're not talking cheap pills here; we're talking major surgery.

Andy R, I'll go first. Match shows that she is a single 30 year old college student and is getting laid 2.74 times day....assuming she is purchasing condomns, which is a good assumption as that is one of the cheapest way to go when you are short of cash.

I say that if she is having recreatinal sex more than...lets say 2 times a week (assuming she is single so have multiple partners), then she is a slut. So lets say she does it 3 times with each partner, that is 6 condomns a week. Times 52, carry the 4, and you get $312 a year. If she can get herself under $300 a year in condomns for encounters, I will reconsider.

Btw, I think we're talking about this because we're all too aware that America is about to go tits up. Nobody wants to ponder that so we quibble over Obama and his minions pissing on the Catholic Church.

I like Rush Limbaugh, and I get his concept of media tweaking,...He's getting so much wrong,...So most of his humor,...is not based on facts,...Quite aside from the lack of a factual basis for his humor,...Even when you get the joke and agree with the criticism,...it feels ugly. The humor backfires.

Why do you force me to disagree with you? Rude, crude, non-factual comedy? Really? Did you ever consider you're being prudish? I've told you, I'm a true blue conservative, but in ART - and comedy is an art - anything goes. It's our outlet. And Steve Martin laid down the law:

According to some here, maybe including our hostess, Rush screwed up because he said something that the mainstream media was able to easily manipulate negatively against him and against conservatives generally by not reporting the facts and context.

Okay, well, yeah.

But riddle me this: when DOES the palace guard ever NOT manipulate facts and context to make conservatives look bad?

Newt Gingrich could say "hello" and it would reported as a racist dog whistle, having misogynistic undertones, reeking of imperialism, and signalling the coming of the apocalypse.

And let's not kid ourselves too much: If it wasn't the birth control issue, there would be some other burning topic that somehow takes the place of reporting about the miserable economy. Or they'd report on the economy by misrepresenting the situation or blaming it all on Republicans. (See, e.g., Michael Kinsley's latest laughable effort.)

There's something to be said for not making it easy for the MSM to slander conservatives but there's also something to be said for not running scared all the time, for brazenly calling out bullshit like this Fluke character, for making a joke of the transparent government-media efforts to convince people they can't do for themselves and to hand over power to the state.

The left is the status quo and has been for quite a while, and it's difficult to shake that up, to get people thinking again. Also, when the knives are out people tend to speak to carefully and become dull. E.g., the wheels going around in Romney's head everytime he's interviewed, trying to hit the sweet spot for conservates without becoming tomorrow's lefty laugh riot. (Haha, Mitt said "underwear.")

Granted, IMAO, this particular joke by Rush is fairly low brow/hurhur. But not compared to jokes deployed daily against conservatives by the left.

Fine. But when this story first broke it was a "set up" for Republicans in that the government was picking on Catholic institutions, which people respect. It is the stupid beyond belief Republican right that turned it from that into an issue about birth control itself, sexual free-loading and sluts. If this was a set up, it is because your side is so predictably set-uppable. Pathetic.

For a truly bright guy - Rush is often stupid. He's got as tin an ear as anybody when it comes to revealing he can be a real jerk. This does conservatism and the GOP no good whatever and will likely turn off a lot of independents.

You know how Rush says he is right 99% of the time?.. lets look at it from the perspective of the Bush era 1 percent doctrine.. which held..

If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis.... It's about our response.

If there's a 1% chance that Rush is helping the liberals develop an election winning strategy, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis.... It's about our response.

I'm not saying Rush has turned..

I'm saying that the oppositions megaphone has the advantage of perception.. taking very little and exploiting it causing major devastating impact.

Rush has to sound.. almost presidential.. at least during the playoffs.

Tax payers don't want to fund abortion and certainly not late term abortion. The contraception Stephanopolis Democrat diversion manipulation conversation is to distract. Look over here - shiny things! and those evil republicans want to steal your ladyparts! & Now one of them just called you a slut. I'm just glad Obama came to her rescue.

There is very little that is more offensive that requiring someone else to violate their conscience for your convenience. It gets worse when someone insists that you don't really have the convictions you have, or that the convictions you have aren't worthy of respect, because so few hold them.

It's offensive when a government that spends $3.6 trillion insists that the small minority of the country that has moral objections to birth control and abortion should be required to become complicit in what they find morally offensive, out of pure spite. The government has plenty of money to buy every woman all the contraception she could want, but insists that dissenters should instead do it, so they know their place.

There's lots to take offense at. But a bunch of jackals are going to worry about the hurt feelings of a 30 year old law student. What a fucking joke.

When Urkel shifted his feet on making religious institutions pay for contraception against that religious institutions conscience and instead shifted it, by literal policy mandate to insurance companies in his little speech, no one ever asked if insurance companies are going to foot the bill for this shit or whether they even want to do that.

Now professor, you say this:

"He's getting so much wrong. He keeps saying that the woman is asking taxpayers to pay for her birth control and that she wants it free. But she's talking about health insurance coverage, which is not paid for with tax money."

That is in effect what she wants. She wants to continue her and her other female georgetown cohorts sexual debauchery and to have insurance companies foot the bill and not raise her premiums to do it. Just ask for them and poof, there they are. Otherwise, why did she bring up the fact that it costs her an entire summers salary to pay for them? It's because she doesn't want to pay for them. Urkel's little cohorts started this play, conservatives are going to end it.

This little tramp is a foot soldier deliberately sacrificing herself on the alter of leftism. It's happening before you very eyes. And we as a citizenry are being asked to front this bullshit. Which is why I said that government subsidized contraception shouldn't be a federal mandate at all. Why the hell is government in this business. It isn't their place. No one is forcing this slutty cunt and her other slutty cunt friends to have sex, so when she does, why do I and others have to pay for it? That's the bottom line.

She argued in front of a congressional committee that this is what she wanted and why and not a one asked her why she was having so much sex that warranted this extra burden of cost not only on herself but on others like her, or if possibly abstaining from such costly activities would bring her personal costs down, or why she didn't shift the burden of responsibility onto her partners instead. But oh now, we can't ask those questions because they are insulting or insensitive or bigoted or sexist.

She came to congress not the other way around and we are going to get fucked too without even asking for it, which is basically rape.

1) Why doesn't he know how the birth control pill works? This isn't new technology. You can't have "more" or "less" sex when "on the pill." Whatever is he talking about? Isn't he married? I am stunned that he doesn't know how this works.

2) Of course it's offensive-- he means to be offensive. But what's up with calling women sluts who are on the pill? Seriously? Again, stunned he's ignorant that people take the pill for PMS symptoms.

Come on, if you're going to put yourself out there to advocate for contraceptives for all, you deserve every bit of nastiness that comes your way. I am completely disgusted by this person. And yes, in the end WE all pay for it.

"Johanna, Rush did not ask the fed'l gov't to force the taxpayers to pay for his boinking. And to the best of my knowledge, the only drug issue he had was pain killers after his medical problems."

Chuck,

In June 2006, Limbaugh was detained by drug enforcement agents at Palm Beach International Airport for Viagra in his luggage when he was returning from the Dominican Republic. The prescription was not in Limbaugh's name.

Moreover, though it has been lost amid the outcry against Limbaugh, he’s right to point out that, those who believe institutions ought to be compelled to fund free birth control are, in effect, demanding a subsidy for having sex. Of course, that is not the same thing as being a prostitute. Nor does it make anyone who wishes to take advantage of such a subsidy a “slut.” Such "terms are abusive. But that is exactly why an entertainer like Limbaugh uses them much as Stewart and liberal comics employ similarly nasty terms to people they wish to deride. Need we really point out that comments made in the context of this sort of show is not the same thing as remarks recorded in the Congressional Record and should thus be judged by a slightly different standard?" Jonathan S. Tobin Contentions blog.

"she was having so much sex that warranted this extra burden of cost not only on herself but on others like her, or if possibly abstaining from such costly activities would bring her personal costs down,"

Interesting. Would people pay for painful period cramps or is that slutty mcslut slut slut behaviour too? Is it really any of your never mind what is happening during a woman's period? Do you want to hear about PMS symptoms and heavy periods? Seriously?

Don't any of you have daughters who take the pill for period cramps and PMS symptoms?

Maybe Rush will head back down to South America and pop a few Viagras and then have a coronary. Getting rid of Rush and Breitbart in the same week would be totally awesome! Two worthless fat slobs who would not be missed.

"Rush Limbaugh will survive this latest attempt to destroy him and may, in fact, benefit from being the subject of a White House barb. But conservatives and those who care about religious liberty should be dismayed by the way the left has been allowed to shield an ominous attempt to expand government power and subvert religious freedom behind a faux defense of women’s rights." Jonathan S. Tobin Contentions blog post

Dane County Taxpayer memorialized...Maybe Rush will head back down to South America and pop a few Viagras and then have a coronary. Getting rid of Rush and Breitbart in the same week would be totally awesome! Two worthless fat slobs who would not be missed.

Catholic with four children and I practice NFP, calling her a slut was wrong and not funny. I don't like being called names, like breeder or assumed I'm wasting my brains because I volunteer, instead of working full-time. I don't like how the Catholic Church is being portrayed as anti-woman, because we see ovulation as something that is healthy and normal. I don't like it when people think my children are burdening me or overpopulating the planet. We're have a very green low carbon foot print, it doesn't matter I'm Catholic so I'm vilified.

Canuck- you are getting sidetracked. Most plans that have prescription coverage would treat the pill (or another medicine) used for that purpose like any other prescription. Even so, not all insurance has prescription coverage.

This is not my area of greatest expertise, but calling your opponent a slut is not the way to reach conflict resolution in an argument with a woman. Well, it's sometimes necessary to go over the line to prove that you're really edgy, and he went over the line.... I heard part of his show today. In the part I heard he did not apologize, but neither did he use the word slut again. He was wrong and should apologize. The Dems will make this an issue about Limbaugh's words, which it is clearly not......If a woman can afford law school, she can afford birth contol devices. And she's not a victim. By the time the Dems get done with her, she will be Joan of Arc.

Canuck, as a matter of reproductive medicine we need better answers the the pill for heavy periods. Let young women finish puberty at least, before resorting to the Pill.I feel for you and women on that concern, we need alternatives to being dependent on contraception.

Also if the Pill is to treat a medical problem, there would be a co-pay. Even for people who think contraception should be covered, think there should be a co-pay which could cost young women 200 dollars out of pocket.

peprgirl said: "And being a lesbian should I get sex toys for free...I don't need contraceptives." -- My favorite comment.

Congress really should have had some gay and straight guys sponsored by the condom industry testify, as well as the dildo packing lesbians, the unsatisfied and the lonely older post menopausal women. Their health matters too.

This whole episode makes me nostalgic for the days when there actually was a "question" whether an unmarried woman would be having sex after a date and needing birth control was her choice.

I never imagined I'd see the day when I would have to be responsible for providing birth control for somebody I don't even know